Another sacred cow. Autohit on 20. Keep or Slay?

[WayneLigon]

I like them, simply because I dislike the idea of totally invulnerable creatures and the idea of totally reliable actions. This is another reason I dislike the D&D spell system so much ; there are still far too many areas where success or failure is an absolute thing (Magic Missle and Orbs spells come to mind; Orb spells are the 1.0 Sleep spell of 3.0; they're so ludicrously good - especially at high levels when so many things you're fighting have SRs and good saves - that you look like an idiot if you use something else when they are available).

The real problem of 'always hit on a 20/always miss on a 1' comes in where we're talking mass battles; then the sheer numbers involved overweigh the spirit of the rules and you get really stupid results - that's expected when you're trying to do something with the system that it's not meant to do. Hopefully there will be a viable mass-battle system in 4E that isn't just the basic combat system writ large.

I do admit to liking a 1.0-3.0 rakshasa's total immunity to anything under 9th level spells, though. But even that isn't complete invulnerability Just virtually complete.

 

[Simon Marks]

Ditch 'em.

A master swordsman has a 5% chance with every blow to screw up? Nuh-uh.

As for 20=autohit, get rid of it. If you are ever in a situation where their AC is more than 20 higher than your attack roll, then it requires tactics. Basically, it shouldn't happen.

Fumble on skill roll? No way man. A surgeon who botches 5% of his operations gets fired. A Pilot who crashes 5% of his flights dies. An adventurer fails to climb a knotted rope 5% of the time.

Just... no.

 

[Minicol]

Moooo !!!

Mooooo !!!

 

[TwinBahamut]

The only flaw is if the game system isunable to handle such an awsome fight. Taking on a horde of foes is as part of D&D as the Lone BBEG. If that 10-100 orcs have to be level one orc minions, so be it.

I never said that fighting a large swarm of weak foes is a flawed encounter. I said that fighting a large swarm of weak foes who need an autohit to do any damage was a flawed encounter.

It is the difference between a bunch of orcs that are weak enough to be usable in vast numbers, but can only hit of the rules let them autohit, or a bunch of orcs weak enough to be usable in vast numbers, who all have an attack bonus which lets them hit 10-25% of the time. The former is the 3E approach, and is a flawed one, but the second one seems to be the 4E approach.

So while your situation does apply to 3E, I don't think it will apply to 4E, and I don't think people should be deciding 4E rules based on situations that are artifacts of 3E's design flaws.

Edit: I suppose I should also mention that I see nothing wrong with a level 20 Fighter, a guy who can tangle with mighty dragons and demons, being so powerful that he can't be hurt by a level 1 Orc and can kill that Orc in a single blow without error. It may be the videogame/mythological influences on my way of playing D&D, but trying to even out the playing field with autohits and automisses just rubs me the wrong way in a general style preference sense as well as a game design sense.

 

[Corinth]

Sacred hamburger makes for a divine meal.

 

[architect.zero]

I never said that fighting a large swarm of weak foes is a flawed encounter. I said that fighting a large swarm of weak foes who need an autohit to do any damage was a flawed encounter.

The bold words are the key: swarm.

Ditch the 20 auto-hit and 1 auto-miss.

Treat large numbers of insignificant opponents like a swarm. Level 20 PCs vs 200 Orcs? Orc Swarm!

If 4e has swarming rules for combining groups of minions (and the like) into swarms, then 20 auto hits and 1 auto misses are not necessary.

 

[Mercule]

As I remember it, Gygax explicitly wrote against making 20s automatic hits.

IIRC, the 1E charts had six 20s. The first one meant you just needed a total of 20 on your attack to hit that AC. Subsequent 20s represented a need for a natural 20 to hit. When the "DC" got to 21 and beyond, it showed a need for a natural 20 with enough bonuses to bring the total up to the number.

Auto-hit/misses are an element of pure, random chance. WotC keeps telling us that increased randomness tends to work against the PCs. So, WotC has provided a pretty good reason to remove auto-hits/misses.

For myself, I've been using 20=30 and 1=-10 since I read the rule in the ELH. It extends the range without throwing too much to chance.

 

[delericho]

IIRC, the 1E charts had six 20s. The first one meant you just needed a total of 20 on your attack to hit that AC. Subsequent 20s represented a need for a natural 20 to hit. When the "DC" got to 21 and beyond, it showed a need for a natural 20 with enough bonuses to bring the total up to the number.

I remember that... but I never played 1E. I guess the rule must have been the same in BD&D.

For myself, I like auto-hit and auto-miss. Keep both.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I say keep 'em. No D&D character should ever be so powerful that the player doesn't have to be a LITTLE worried when the dice start rolling.

If you're thinking a PC should never be fighting something that can't hit him, consider that in 4e you add half your level to your AC. So a tenth-level fighter in plate mail with a shield can easily get 30 AC, even with little or no magical equipment. Should a heroic-tier character be INVINCIBLE to a peasant with a pitchfork?

And as others have noted, autohit on 20 reduces the temptation to "turtle" by stacking AC to absurd levels.

 

[Derren]

I say keep 'em. No D&D character should ever be so powerful that the player doesn't have to be a LITTLE worried when the dice start rolling.

When fighting something which can only hit me by a natural 20 autohit I am not really worried either. It only means that I might be hit once during an entire encounter. Thats the same as being invulnerable.
I would only be worried if I fought hundreds of those enemies and that means that the encounter is seriously broken.